High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 08 UK CK 0081

Kashmeer Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 August 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. Application No.1276 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 310 words

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the applicant.

2.

Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3.

An FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 3 against the applicant and other co-accused persons, which has been registered as FIR No. 0122 of

2018 under Sections 147/325/504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

at ROP Kundeshwari, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. After investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against the present

applicant. Thereafter the learned Special Sessions Judge concerned took cognizance in the matter and issued summons to the present applicant.

Hence, the present application under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the first information report the alleged incident took place inside the house of the complainant,

and therefore, it is not a public place and hence no offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is about 73 years of age.

5.

All these arguments would be available to the applicant before the court below at the time of hearing on the discharge application, if moved, which

shall be considered in accordance with law. But at this stage no interference is being called for by this Court. Let the applicant appear before the

court below which shall consider his bail application expeditiously preferably on the same day and shall decide the same on its own merits, considering

the fact that the applicant is about 73 years’ old person.

6.

In view of the above, the application filed under Section 482 of CrPC stands disposed.